tv [untitled] June 3, 2013 5:00am-5:31am PDT
>> and they are already covered as mr. pilpal points out. >> and so. on the decision point one, we only need to consider draft regulation 3.1-103-1,; is that correct?? >> that is correct. >> any further questions? >> from the commissioners? >> could i have a motion? >> i move that we adopt decision 3.1. >> second. >> all in favor? >> aye. >> we will pass 3.1-103-1. >> the next regulation basically requires each filer to provide a working e-mail address to the ethics commission and it runs through the system that will generate a password that will be accessible only to the filer
via, the e-mail address. and what we are asking under the regulation is that they provide to us the commission a working and unique e-mail address on or before january first, 2014. >> it sounds very controversial. >> i could live with that. >> and that is 3.1-103-2. >>; is that correct?? >> that is correct. >> what about 3.1-500-2? >> we are eliminating. >> you eliminated that one? >> yeah. >> okay. >> i think that steven can address why we need the e-mail
address. >> so the form 700 needs to be signed under penalty of perjury, so there needs to be some authentication method to say that you are in fact the person that you say you are in the system. >> the way that the system works is that the commissioners would provide an e-mail address to their commissioners and secretary, and who would provide a list of e-mail addresses to the ethics commission and we would input those e-mail addresses into the system and then the filer would go to our website and would enter their e-mail address which would send the password to the account back to that filer. and because of that process, the ethics and staff or anyone else would have access to the password only that filer would have access. >> and so we know that when we go in there and complete the form and check off they are say that they are signing under penalty of surgery that they are the ones that logged in.
this is the authentication method that is made in the two available systems that it has approved and if we decide not to collect the e-mail address we would not be able to use any of the systems on the market right now. >> any questions on that one commissioners? >> public comment? >> david pilpal again, i don't object i just have concerns about burdening city officers who may not have e-mail, may not want to have e-mail and may not want to subject themselves to to the information and privacy policies to a third party aoe mail provisor and for which a city department does not have the resources or does not want to provide the e-mail that they have another option.
and so that is what your next provides for, and that is some alternative scheme, i think that it is going to be very important to notify appointing officers. appointing authorities, board and commission secretaries about their responsibilities here, both by 2014 and going forward, and to update the good government guide so that new appointees and members of the boards and commissions know that this is a new requirement so within the 15 calendar days of a change to their address, e-mail or phone number that they need to notify the ethics commission that is an absolutely new requirement. >> so, there is that and i am sure that all of that training is going to happen and it would happen better if we had a training officer and yet another resource that the commission staff is now down and that a position that we are attempting to fill.
>> thank you very much. >> there are people who don't have e-mails? >> there is one right there. >> wow. >> okay. >> very impressive. >> all right. any other public comment on this draft regulation? >> commissioners? >> make a motion. >> thank you. >> i move decision point 3 to approve draft. the two draft regulations. >> 2. >> yeah. >> 2. >> turn the page too fast. >> i was on the topic. >> right. >> adraft regulation 3.1-103-2. >> do i hear a second? >> second. >> thank you >> all in favor? >> aye. >> the decision passes. and we move on to the next one. >> the next draft regulation
3.1-103-3 is what mr. pilpal alluded to. this will provide a small exception to the efiling requirement for those who cannot use a computer or who cannot efile. such persons may seek per miss to file a written paper version with the commission to provide that person seeks permission and provide the reason why the request should be granted and that request has to come at least 15 days prior to the deadline for filing the form 700. >> comment on this? commissioner hur? >> i am trying to imagine what basis would not be... granted or denied in this situation.
i mean so if someone says that i don't have an e-mail address that is sufficient i imagine to get a waiver? but what other kinds of decisions are we anticipating here? >> i think that the explanation would have to have a little bit more substance than that. just to prevent the people who don't feel like filing electronically to just say i don't have an e-mail. >> so what? you have a philosophical basis for not wanting a e-mail. >> either philosophical or technical one. if one request to file paper would we put that into an electronic form? >> it would not be exactly the same. first of all when the paper copy comes in, it would be
manually processed and it would not be available in a timely manner as the electronic filing would be. and then the second aspect would be when the electronic filing comes in we get two pieces of information. the data format and we are also getting it put on to the form. so in the future if we provide this information in a data format to the public, anyone who filed a paper copy would be excluded from that data set so to speak. the public has the potential for the information for those who file the paper copies. >> that is what i was questioning if one might want to do the paper one that less likely that the public would get the less access to it and you say file electronically and
those are available to anybody going tolt website and pulling it up. >> and when you file a written one they have to come down here and look at it. >> we would scan the paper copy into an electronic copy but it would be an image in a data format that could be searched in the future. right now our website, only we show the list of the files that have not been filed and pulls up the form, but if everyone starts to e-mail, we have the potential and the data in other data formats that are more easily searched. and so you are correct and if there was a damage format it would be excluded for that. >> could that be typed in
manually. >> the systems that are available were, no it is not possible, but i don't expect the vendors to do that. >> okay. >> do we think that there would be that many people who would opt for the paper filing. we don't know. >> you don't know? >> i think that this was to handle any foreseen circumstances. >> they would have to have a compelling reason otherwise they would not get permission >> public comment? >> i mean if that is the standard then i think that we
should say that. >> i can see the advantage why someone might want to file on paper, and either a compelling reason, or require, i mean certainly require some hurdles that make it clear that there is not going to be an exception that abused. >> friends of ethics and so having these documents be searchable is really the most important thing that happens. if you do this electronically and so let's take for example, i wanted to search and find all of the city official whose report that they had no income. that would be surprising, that someone would put down that they don't have an income, because most do have one of some kind. we have a number of city officials who claim having no income. some of which are subjects of investigations but the only way that we know that is by going
through each individual commissioner and looking at their form 700 to see if they disclosed that they had outside business, or other form of information. and i could do it all at one time if it was all electronic. >> and a lot of people did not want to disclose that they had other income. >> and willing to make your life easier, thank you. >> other comments? >> well... >> again, thank you, for this. two things, first to mr. bush's comment. i would note that there is some specific exclusions to income reporting for the form 700, so there are individuals who receive a government salary, either from that agency or another agency that don't need to report that as a source of income on the form 700. they are along and there is a list of other forms of income that are not reported.
and also, not all filers are category filers that require a full disclosure and some are through whatever, and that varies on the agency with respect to what interest they need to respect. and so not all filers are equal. >> with respect to the waiver request, concept, my understanding is that they are now up to 20 or so filers who are voluntarily filing electronically. under provisions that have been in place for several years, which is about, three percent filing electronically. i would suspect that if we get up to 20 filers on paper, not electronic that that would be a large number and if we can move within the course of the year from 3 percent to 97 percent, that would be a major change, lots more data and lots more accessibility and then we can
talk about what waivers were requested and granted and whether there was good cause and whatever, but i think that granting the executive director authority to grant or deny in his discretion is fair and reasonable and we will see how this plays out and there are a lot of other steps that will need to happen here, and i will continue to work constructively with the staff on this, i am very interested and very excited about that notwithstanding, what some people may think. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> sure. >> any other public comment? >> commissioners? >> shall we move forward with this? >> do we have a motion? >> i would move to adopt decision 3.1-103-3, subject to the amendment that we would add
compelling, the word compelling for reasons in the second to last sentence. >> seconded. >> all in favor? >> aye. >> aye. >> and we have one more. >> okay. the last regulation, basically requires any appointing authority or commission secretary whenever they sent letters to the ethics commission about who was, or left off as that, that the notice contained the name of the department head who has assumed the office whether appointee or a department head, or when that person did it, the name of the board commission, and the eml address and the telephone number of the appointee and the department heads and this just basically gives us more information in
case we have to contact the person who needs to file the sei. >> commissioners? >> we on this? >> public comment. >> david pilpal good out reach is going to be necessary to make this work. my understanding is that the mayor's office right now is in pretty good communication with the staff about changes in appointments. i don't think that is informally the case with regard to other appointing authorities. there are some sort of some what appointments that are made by various city officials so bringing them all up to the standard communication within 15 days will be good and i
noted as a read the language of the law the failure to provide such notice may constitute official misconduct and so there was contemplation that this 15-day notice requirement was pretty important. and yet, it does not happen as regularly with the folks other than the mayor's office. as it could in my opinion. but points to miss wheaton and the mayor's office for doing their work. so... again, i am sure that this will play out and staff will do a good job with out reach. so, i commend this regulation to you. >> thank you. >> any other public comment? >> commissioners? >> can i hear a motion? >> i move that we adopt
decision the draft regulation 3.1-105-1. >> second. >> all in favor? >> aye. >> >> draft regulation pass and we are done with that. >> now, to consider possible closed session. >> is there any discussion that we need to have prior to a motion? >> regarding this? >> a motion and public comment. >> yeah. >> and could i have a motion to move into a closed session? >> so moved. >> second? >> second. >> thank you. >> all in favor?
deliberations? >> >> i move that we not disclose our closed session deliberations, 69-13. >> second. >> public comment? >> sorry. >> yes. hearing none, all in favor? >> aye. >> the motion passes. >> okay. approval of the minutes? of the commission meeting of april 22nd? >> any corrections or changes? >> commissioners? >> public comment?
>> david pilpal, on page 3, the motion 13-04-22-1, i think that it was actually the same motion that commissioner renne made that was finally seconded by commissioner hur i am not sure that it was a new motion, i think that commissioner hur did not want to second it until after public comment. but it was listed as two separate motions naoe. way, not that important, but i like the typo on page 6, my public comment about section two about gentleman's agreements, it was actually settlement agreement and someone listened to the tape and got it wrong, i suggest that you strike gentleman's and replace it with settlement. >> that was the intended word. >> is that in the first paragraph. >> six 6. >> at the top. >> it is a fun one and a good
one, thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> any other comments on the minutes? >> is there a motion to approve the minutes? >> as corrected? >> i move to approve the minutes with the correction about gentleman's agreements being settlement agreements. >> second. >> all in favor? >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> the minutes are approved. >> executive director's report. >> i only have one highlight. just to remind the commissioners that we have budget hearings in june, before the next commission meeting so i will be attending at the board of supervisors hearings on our budget as well as all other departments. before the next meeting and i
will report back to you then how that did go. but i am optimistic about this year. >> that is good news. >> we will get... more resources are always welcome. >> any questions for the executive director? >> public comment? >> items for future meetings? >> as i mentioned earlier, i would like to put on the agenda a discussion concerning the issue that was raised by mr. bush about the what used to be what were called the expenditure lobbyists and i got
to say that frankly i don't, not being here at the time, i don't have a lot of understanding as to who was covered or what was intended to be covered under expenditure lobbyists but i guess that i would just sort of classify the agenda item to be a discussion whether or not we are ought to amend the regulations so that we capture what was previously captured under the heading lobbyist. because what concerns me is that when i look at the outfits that reported expenditures and the issue project say in 2007,
spent 46,000 dollars, a small property owners, $1,000, and then in 2009, apparently the san francisco common sense coalition listed 58,000, san francisco firefighter local 798, 367 and as i understand it, those kind of contributions, whatever they were referred to would not be covered under our present regulations. and i would like to have a discussion concerning whether or not we ought to make some amendment that would recapture moneys that are being spent to influence public opinion on either governmental projects or whatever governmental action they are being spent on.
>> i think that it is a good idea. >> and i think that we want to include a discussion of what mr. gibner suggested. the referals? >> right. >> is that how we should refer to, probable cause referals? >> i think that it is just off outside of the public and or during the break, we also discussed the possibility of setting a new process or considering new regulations dealing with our referals of matters that, referals of complaints that are in the commission's jurisdiction. >> any other items that we want to add for the future agendas?
>> public comment? >> david pilpal and i am not sure what he just referred to about referals and during the break? >> i am happy to explain. during the... when a question arose, in a closed session discussion about how the commission handles referals. >> okay. >> and that as a public session discussion is to be had. >> okay. >> and a future meeting. >> that is right. >> and there is a concern that some of us have that often such referals appear simply as dismissals. and add to the number of so-called dismissals of which we are accused of having too many. and so, one of the things that we want to look at is that there is a different way to
categorize probable cause issues that are referred out to another agency. >> so... >> so it is not a dismissal, but rather a referal. >> but it is a disposition of matters that are before the commission that get referred to another satingcy. >> correct. >> and how to categorize that disposition. >> yeah. >> and this of course is part of the problem when people start looking at the numbers and then like well, if it were about the numbers... >> exactly. >> 49 percent of statistics are almost half. never mind. >> i did have something else for a future agenda. now i am losing it because we got side tracked with this. >> and give me a second and i will remember. >> you are too young to have these memory problems. >> after memory what is the next thing to go?
>> okay. >> anything further commissioners? >> mr. pilpal? >> it will come back to you. >> all right. i think that concludes this... >> not quite. >> i just remembered. >> sorry. some time in the last month or six weeks, president chiu and city attorney herarra proposed amendments to the various laws governing ethics to try to tighten up. the commission has not held a hearing on those, the way that i understand it. they are written in such a way that it would not require the commission's concur ans because it does not amend sections that the commission has approval or
aauthority over, nevertheless, i think that it would be good to discuss what the proposals are and what the impact would be or what they are trying to get at and how just to talk about those proposals. they were sort of highlights as a big deal thing and i don't know if they are a big deal and i think that it will be good for the staff to talk about what they are and what they will do and we can just talk about it. >> you will be glad to know that we definitely plan to do that. >> careful what you ask for. >> i thought that you said that they will be sent to us. >> they will be referred to us for comment and recommendation. >> all right. >> it is not actually a four fifth. >> we don't have to adopt them for law. >> sometimes you ask and you get it immediately. >> thank you very much. >> with that, i believe that we conclude the matters before the commission today. and do i hear a motion to adjourn? >> so moved. >> second. >> all in favor? >>